listen live on the free c-span read at. the senate about to begin its day with gavel to gavel coverage here on c-span2. senators debating government spending which runs out on friday. they will be voting tomorrow whether or not to move ahead with the current proposal that was filed friday by the majority leader, and expecting a vote sometime this week to override the president's veto of a 9/11 victims lawsuit bill.
the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, the fountain of all of our blessings, we rejoice because of the majesty of your name and power, for your glory fills the earth. we see your handiwork in the beauty of spacious skies and in
the splendor of amber waves of grain. today, inspire our senators so that the thoughts they think, the words they speak, and the deeds they do will please you. lord, as our lawmakers strive to live worthy of their blessings, continue to surround them with the shield of your favor, and prompt them to strive to find common ground. as we all experience your favor, help us to remember the needy and those crushed by the iron feet of injustice.
may we strive to stay within the circle of your providential will, remembering your promise to supply all of our needs. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c.,
september 26, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable joni ernst, a senator from the state of iowa, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: is there a message at the desk in reference to s. 2040? the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a communication from the secretary of the senate regarding that matter. the clerk will read the communication. the clerk: united states senate, office of the secretary. september 26, 2016. the honorable joseph r. biden jr., president of the senate, united states senate, washington, d.c., 20510. deer mr. president, on friday, september 23, 2016, the president of the united states
sent by messenger the attached sealed envelope addressed to the president of the senate dated september 23, 2016 said to contain a veto message on the bill s. 2040, the justice against sponsors of terrorism act. the senate not being in session on the last day wit president had for the return of this bill under the provisions of the constitution of the united states in order to protect the interests of the senate so that it might have the opportunity to reconsider the bill, i accepted the message at 3:45 p.m. and i now present to you the president's veto message with accompanying papers for disposition by the senate. respectfully, jewelie e. -- julie e. adams, secretary of the senate. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the veto message on s. 2040 be considered as having been read, that it be printed in the record and spread in full upon the journal.
the presiding officer: is there okay? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the veto message be held at the desk and i. at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader on wednesday september 28, the senate proceed to the veto message on s. 2040. that there be two hours of debate divided between the leaders or their designees, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the president to the contrary, notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, madam president, the 10-week clean c.r. the senate will vote on tomorrow is pretty simple. it keeps the government funded at the same agreed-upon bipartisan spending levels as today. it contains zero controversial
riders, it funds the fight against zika, and it ensures that veterans and the victims of severe flooding and the heroin and prescription opioid crisis are not left behind. it's clean, it's fair, we should pass it. now, it's true that some in the democratic leadership would like to turn this simple 10-week funding bill into some unnecessary partisan food fight. they think it's a good election year politics, but they've struggled to explain how they might even justify a vote against it. can't do it on spending levels. they already agreed to those. can't do it on controversial riders. there are none. can't do it on zika. we have a bipartisan compromise there. and both democrats and republicans agree on the need to
help vets, flood victims, and those suffering from the heroin and prescription opioid crisis. so if both parties support what's actually in the clean c.r. zika package, then just what in this bill are democratic leaders opposed to? turns out, they're trying to take our country to the brink, not based on something that's in this bill but something that isn't. and it's something the senate already addressed in the appropriate vehicle to do so. on september 15, the senate voted to pass the water resources development act, which includes assistance for the families affected by lead poisoning in flint. as chairman inhofe has pointed out, wrda is not only the proper vehicle to address the situation facing flint now, it's also the proper vehicle to help prevent water infrastructure crises in the future.
the house is now preparing this week to pass wrda as well. and chairman inhofe has pledged that he'll continue to pursue resources for flint once the bill goes to conference. we know it's important to help the victims of recent severe flooding. democrats are now suggesting, however, that we not provide the relief unless they get an unrelated rider in this clean c.r. zika package. is the solution then to remove help for flood victims? if their solution to remove help for flood victims, they should say so. so let's be clear. it would be cruel for any senator who just voted to help flint to now turn around and filibuster help for the victims of floods, the heroin, and prescription opioid crisis, and zika as part of some partisan game. senators in both parties now this. i know our democratic friends
understand this, especially when you consider their calls to do more to address the heroin and prescription opioid crisis. especially when you consider the letter they just wrote on zika this month. let me read some of what they had to say. "zika is now well-established in the united states with cases of local transmission by mosquitoes being reported in multiple areas of florida, as well as u.s. territories. democratic senators wrote, it's causing -- quote -- "babies to die, pregnant women and communities to suffer, and aduments to worry about the future long-term neurological risk from zika." these senate democrats called for immediate passage of a bipartisan zika package because -- quote -- "the longer we dlairks the greater the irreparable human harm from zika." so it's time for -- this is what they said. "the time for partisan games is
over." now, that's a letter senate democrats wrote just this month. well, the bill before us contains a compromise zika package that both parties support. senator nelson, a democrat from florida, understands the urgency of addressing zika. that's why he supports this bill. which, as noted, represents a -- quote -- "clean $1.1 billion to help stop the spread of zika virus with no political riders." senator schatz, the democratic from hawaii, also voiced his support. just last week he said, it's good for his state and urged that we move forward with providing the c.d.c. with the resources it needs. senator nelson, senator schatz are just two democratic senators out of nearly 30 who penned the letter earlier this month, calling for a quick congressional action on zika. i would ask all of them to join us in acting now. just as we join together to help
flint earlier this month in the appropriate vehicle, now it's time for democratic democrats to join with republicans to ensure veterans and those impacted by zika, flooding, and the heroin and prescription opioid crisis do not fall victim to a partisan filibuster. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: virtually every time donald trump says or does something discriminatory -- and that's often -- the media has a bunch of words to describe his actions. the press uses words like "prejudice" and bigot" to name but a few. yet there's always one word that many of the press conspicuously
avoid: "racist." they never label trump as a racist. but he is a racist. donald trump is a racist. racist is a term i don't throw around lightly. madam president, we've all, with rare exception -- i don't know who it would be -- but have said things that are not politically correct. but i don't know of anyone that when that happens doesn't acknowledge it and, if necessary, apologize quickly. but donald trump doesn't believe the racist things he does and says are wrong. he says them with full expwents to demean and -- with full intent to demean and to denigrate. that's who he is. each time he is given a chance to apologize and makes amends, he refuses and doubles down. the media is not holding account at all trump. he is not being held accountable. so why do reporters and pundits
be a stain from callin calling n from calling trump what he is, a racist? his bigotry has been on display since the early days of his business career. when donald trump was still working at his father's side as second in command, the department of justice slapped their company with a civil rights lawsuit. why? because they deserved it. undercover federal officers in new york found that trump's discriminated against potential ten and thes by rejecting applicants for housing from african-americans and puerto ricans. the trump's even had a secret service for the practices. as "the washington post" reported "trump employees had screatly marked the applications with codes such as number 9 and "c" for color. the employees directed blacks and puerto ricans away from buildings with mostly white
tenants and steered them towards property that had many minorities." close quote. in the 1980's, trump took his racism to a atlantic city where this is donald trump at his best -- he cheated, coerced, filed bankruptcy, did anything he could to cheat people out of money. but he also in the process his racism came to the forefront from atlantic city. he was accused of making his african-american employees move off the casino floor when he didn't want to see them which was any time he came to the is casino. one employee said, kit brown said -- quote -- "when donald and ivana came to the casino the bosses would order all the black people off the floor. it was the 1980's. i was a teenager but i remember. he put us all in the back." trump was later fined $200,000
by the new jersey casino control commissioner. in the 1990's the former president of trump plaza and the casino wrote a book about his time working with donald trump. he reported trump frequently denigrated african-americans. he remembers a lot but specifically remembers trump saying of his accountants -- and i quote -- "i've got black accountants at trump plaza and black guys counting my i hate it. the only people i want counting my money are short people that wear yarmulkes." these are words coming from donald trump's mouth. the only kind of people i want counting my money are short guys
that wear yarmulkes every day. that's what he said. speaking of another african-american employee, trump told o'donnell another quote, i think the guy is lazy and it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. it really is. i believe that. that's donald trump. he thinks blacks are lazy and they can't help it because it's one of their traits. trump didn't deny it. he later admitted in another quote, the stuff o'donnell wrote about me is probably true. close quote. since donald trump became involved until presidential politics his racism reached new heights. trump led the so-called birther movement to delegitimize our first african-american president. last year announcing his candidacy for president, trump denounced mexican immigrants as -- quote -- "criminals, drug
dealers and rapists." consider all the despicable racist things donald trump has done this year alone. he's repeatedly called for a ban on muslims entering the united states. trump attacked a gold star dad, a gold star mother that were muslims, their son, captain khan, was killed in battle. but donald trump, he didn't only question mr. khan, he questioned mrs. khan. she was sitting there and he said i guess she's not talking because she's forbidden to by islam. donald trump retweeted a message from nazi sympathizers and white supremacists. he being donald trump. donald trump launched a racist tack on united a united states t
judge, a man born in indiana, but trump didn't like that because he had a mom and a dad who were mexican heritage. he said he should be disqualified from hearing a case. speaker ryan called trump's offensive attack, quote from speaker ryan -- quote -- "the textbook definition of a racist comment." this is the united states house of representatives speaker who acknowledges that his republican presidential nominee is a racist yet here we are seven weeks from election day, and the speaker of the house and senate republican leader are both endorsing this racist man. we probably should not support a man for president who by their speaker's own admission is a textbook definition of a racist. think of the example he's setting for our nation's youth. republicans are normalizing this racist behavior. this will be their legacy, one of them.
they got plenty to add to that. those who refuse to denounce donald trump's actions as racism are complicit in propagating and normalizing his hate. it's time for republicans to stop closing their eyes to donald trump's racism, and it's time for reporters and journalists to be honest with the american people. they owe america the truth. through his words and deeds, donald trump is a racist. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the following statement appear at a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. i'm going to make a few comments on the c.r. madam president, senator mcconnell has given a great
statement, but about whom? it's a straw man argument. we don't oppose zika legislation. we don't oppose flooding victims. we want more. we think it should be taken care of, but that hasn't been in this bill, that's for sure. and opioid, we think it should be funded. really, not this path that doesn't do anything. what it does is allow you to spend money that's not here. we think we should do the shaheen legislation and pay for it. we do believe that we should not leave flint behind, though. and here's what i want to say about that. the c.r. proposed by the republicans are short on a number of issues, and i'll talk about two of them this afternoon. i was especially disappointed to see what republicans' proposal is regarding another disaster, a disaster that's ongoing for well more than a year.
this c.r., this funding measure does not quote a single penny for flint, michigan. not a penny. the people of flint, michigan, have been waiting for emergency assistance to clean their poison water for more than a year. 100,000 people, children lead poisoned already. senate republicans claim they address the needs of flint when we return after the election. we've heard that before, haven't we? that is when republicans go to move for funding for flint. they always claim they will do it at a later time. flint has heard this and heard this. in the meantime the people of flint, if they're fortunate, can take a drink of water out of a bottle and bathe with bottled water. we ran out of time months ago. we ran out of time when the republicans decided to take a seven-week vacation, which was
something that is remarkable in history. in more than 60 years. and with the time we're going to have off before december 9, the end date of that funding resolution, it will be the longest break that the senate has had going back, we believe, before the depression. the great depression, not the bush depression. now, mr. president, -- madam president, i'm so sorry, the crisis is now, i talked about a year but it's been going on for a long time because two and a half years ago flint learned that its water was not safe. nine months ago the republican governor snyder and president obama went to declare the water crisis an emergency. five months ago the senate environmental protection environment and public works
committee passed bipartisan legislation with an aid package for flint. i commend senator mcconnell for agreeing to do the same thing. it was voted out two weeks ago in a vote of 95-3. it came out of the senate. it's part of the so-called wrda act, water resources development act. but house republicans have made it clear they have no intention of including funding for flint in that bill. and still the people of flint wait for assistance. i've heard all the happy talk. well, the republicans are going to take care of this. call and tell me they're going to take care of it. give me some assurance we're going to take care of it. 100,000 flint residents continue to struggle, struggle with having safe water to drink. 40% of the people of flint live below the poverty line.
flint, michigan is a community of color, african-americans. the junior senator from louisiana was especially callous in dismissing the people of flint. it's hard, madam president, to acknowledge what he said but i'm going to do it. he called the emergency in flint -- quote -- "other people's grief." well, using his analogy, the things we've done over the years, with all the problems louisiana has had -- hurricanes, floods, wind storms, and this latest ravaging rain they got -- in nevada, i guess that's somebody else's problem, the people in louisiana. the many problems we've had in texas over the last decade, they are everybody's problems but not by definition of the senator from louisiana. they're not other people's
grief. i would suggest the relatively new senator from louisiana needs to think, and figure out what the name of his job is. it's united states senator, not state senator from louisiana. united states senator. he can look out for the people in louisiana without turning a cold shoulder to fellow americans in michigan. congress must act to address emergencies whenever and wherever they occur, especially to help vulnerable americans because every one of these emergencies is creating lots of vulnerable americans. people in flint deserves justice, and 9,000 children who have been lead poisoned deserve justice. but instead of helping the people of flint, he proposes using this government funding measure to feed their addiction to unaccountable and undisclosed dark money. the republican leader stuck in this bill, this resolution,
this funding resolution a provision to prevent the securities and exchange commission from telling corporations that they must disclose campaign contributions. that's -- if there were ever legislation that didn't deserve a continuing resolution would be that. shadowy interest groups are spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on advertisements trying to elect their hand-picked political count parts. what is this dark money? all these advertisements with phony front groups, most of which are funded by the koch brothers, you don't see their name on anything other than some divert attention thing, public service announcement, how good koch services are for creating jobs. koch industries is great for trying to get richer and richer
and richer and trying to enrich these two wealthy, wealthy republican right-wing men who are doing everything they can to buy america. and they're doing pretty well. i have to give them credit for that. if they continue the way they are, they're going to be first in line, they're going to be number one to be the number-one oligarch in america. and they can match to see if they're entitled to be even a notch higher than the number-one oligarch in russia. russia is an oligarchy. and because of the koch brothers, america is turning into one. and what does the republican leader do? he sticks a provision in this legislation to protect them even further. current federal law requires publicly traded corporations to disclose financial details in their annual reports such as how they appoint executive officers and other things.
but shareholders, the true owners of a corporation, have no idea how much money is being spent in politics, being directed by a few of them in the corporation. the securities and exchange commission does not require this to be reported. last august, 44 democratic senators signed a letter to the securities and exchange commission in support of adding political disclosure to annual shareholder reports. the republican leader wants to stop this. he wants to do everything he can to protect the koch brothers. but, madam president, the securities and exchange commission received a million public comments in support of disclosure because it protects the interests of investors. a million comments. that's unheard of. republicans in the senate are opposed to disclosure. that's why the republican leader has attached the so-called rider to the government funding bill that prevents shareholders from knowing how the money is spent. how their money is spent.
and is being used in the political process. republicans are holding the government hostage because they want to keep our political system awash in dark money. they don't give huge contributions to the chamber of commerce, the national rifle association and on and on. millions and millions of dollars. senate republicans need to rethink their priorities. republicans need to spend less time worrying about the balance of their campaign accounts and more time protecting their fellow americans, especially those in flint, michigan. madam president, i see my friend, the senior senator from iowa, on the floor here, but i think before he speaks you should announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 5325, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 516, h.r. 5325, an act making appropriations for the
legislative branch, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: natural disasters happen. eight years ago, senator harkin and i had to deal with flooding in eastern iowa. today senator ernst and i are called upon to observe, as we did this past weekend, a great amount of flooding in eastern iowa. we have also heard earlier this year, at least the senators from west virginia, the senators from louisiana, speak about the natural disasters in their state. it was only eight years ago that i was on the floor talking about the record devastation caused by
severe storms and floods. many of the same places are currently experiencing similar flooding as rivers are recessing at record or near record levels. on saturday, i toured several cities with the governor, lieutenant governor and members of the iowa congressional delegation, including senator ernst. we saw debris and damage left by receding floodwaters, many homes under water and great flood fight preparations. many businesses and individual volunteersworking tirelessly to help prevent damage to both public and private property and help clean up. just today, i had discussion with the mayor of green, iowa, the number of high schools that are closed in that area but the kids coming in to help clean up
in the city of green, iowa. this is the iowa way. i think those who have helped and will provide assistance in the future, since the floods of 2008, many lessons have been learned. plans and training to protect iowa communities are in place. i'm pleased to report the mitigation through federal, state and local resources that has taken place throughout iowa since the floods of 2008 has been beneficial. this has already proven effective and will lessen the impact of this year's floods. it is estimated that more than $50 million of reduced impact will be experienced because of previous mitigation efforts. however, as we learned this weekend, so much remains to be done. iowa's second largest city,
cedar rapids, experienced massive devastation with more than 1,300 city blocks covered in water and over $32 billion worth of damages in the floods of 2008. today, as a result of massive amount of rains upstream over the last few days, the city of cedar rapids is fighting to prepare for the high crest on the cedar river second only to 2008. cedar rapids is doing everything it can to protect its cities by using barriers, earthen levies and berms. however, a permanent solution through permanent flood control structures is still very much needed. even prior to the 2008 flood protection of the cedar river in cedar rapids was -- prior to the
2008 floods, protection of cedar river in cedar rapids was identified as needing evaluation. in 2006, congress authorized a flood risk management feasibility study with a festibility cost-share arrangements being signed on may 30, 2008. since then, the festibility study was completed and alternatives chosen, although this federal project only predicts a portion of cedar rapids. i worked to get the construction of the project authorized in the water resources reform and development act of 2014. that happened to be the first water resources development act bill since 2007. however, funding has been difficult to obtain since a
benefit-cost ratio is just over the figure one from the point of view of the corps of engineers scoring. i am pleased that the senate instructed the army corps of engineers to expedite this and three other flood damage reduction and flood risk management projects in the recently passed water resource development act. also in this year's act, the senate passed in the bill an amendment that i was glad to cosponsor with my colleague, senator ernst, requiring the general accounting office is to study the army corps of engineers methodology and performance metrics used to calculate benefit-cost ratios when evaluating production projects. i have heard from cedar rapids, des moines and several other
places in iowa regarding their concerns about how the corps calculates the benefit of structures and that mitigation and future savings is not a strong factor in determining flood risk management. and let me say that as i talked to people in iowa but particularly in cedar rapids, iowa, about the cost-benefit ratio and mitigation of future savings not being taken so much into consideration as something that they just do not understand. i recognize that this is a complex issue and that the corps rarely gets enough funding to operate and maintain what it owns, let alone start numerous construction projects. i also recognize the need to have a rationale on how to prioritize projects when there are scarce resources, and i have been supportive of these efforts. however, a one-size-fits-all
approach doesn't work when dealing with flood protection, and this is the most difficult thing to explain to people in cedar rapids, iowa. it is a necessity to more accurately quantify future benefits and the protection of citizens when making benefit-cost ratios. we also need to find a way to expedite these flood projects so it doesn't take 20-40 years to study and to design and to build and seems like forever to get completed. iowans, especially the people in cedar rapids again, don't understand when they are faced with severe repeated flooding why the federal government does not prioritize flood risk management and mitigation instead of spending emergency
money to fight and recover and put them back in the same position as they were before. that money was spent in 2008. maybe not as much money but still a great deal of money spent this year and still be in the same position. that's just what is not seemed to be understood. this money would be better spent than actually mitigating the problem and protecting citizens and their property. i have heard of similar concerns all across the united states, not just in iowa. my staff has surveyed articles from louisiana, texas, new jersey and idaho, all stating similar concerns, and i'm sure if we continue to look, we would find others as well. i call on the army corps of
engineers to carefully evaluate how they can improve their areas of flood control policy. reforms have taken place to expedite the study, planning and report process, but reforms are needed to how they make these determinations. i also call on the office of management and budget, and my colleagues on the appropriations committee, to change the way the army corps of engineers receives its funding. every part of the corps budget could be considered an earmark under senate rules. therefore, it is very hard to advocate for the needs of the corps' district and projects within congress without violating the earmark ban. as a result, the primary decision about what is included in the corps' budget rests with
the president's budget each year. i'm not advocating to bring back earmarks for specific projects, but to fund the corps in a programmatic way and by district to allow congress to exercise its oversight over funding decisions. all branches need to be held accountable for spending decisions including the federal bureaucracy. congress should have the power of the purse for funding decisions of such importance to the people we represent, not just some bureaucrat. a retired major general, tom sanz, who was a commanding general of the army corps of engineers lower mississippi valley division and president of the mississippi river commission, wrote in a biological for "the hill" newspaper on september 7 this year, and i quote --" no doubt
the rationale for the corps is to foster fairness, but federal water policy would be better focused on how to quantify and achieve superior outcomes. this new approach needs to focus more on common sense than on bureaucratic decisions." end of quote. as i have based my work as a public servant on iowa's common sense, not bureaucratic nonsense, i couldn't have said it better than general sanz had, and so i associate myself with his remarks. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 636, s. 1896. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 636, s. 1886, a bill to reauthorize the integrated coastal and ocean observation system act of 2009 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the committee reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 573 submitted earlier the presiding officer: ratepayer en -- the clerk will report.
the clerk: senate resolution 3573 designating october 2016 as national hydrogen and cell fuel day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. those opposed, nay. the ayes have it. mr. mcconnell: i ask the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: s. res. 574, s. res. 575, s. res. 576, and s. res. 577. the presiding officer: is there
objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, september 27. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of h.r. 5325. finally, the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. hofstk
chronicle. how have you been covering the lead up to this debate? guest: we have a couple hundred students. it's a student run newspaper. we have no direct relation to the school. we have been covering the debate wall-to-wall. last week we were able to get an op-ed straight from hillary clinton and her team. students tohe wants do during the debate to be active. we have over 50 students covering all the events on campus from the debate itself to the protests to the events being put on. it's going to be a hectic day. host: what has been the most interesting story in the lead up to the debate? a lot of the protests have been a lot of fun. yesterday we were able to get in contact with dr. jill stein.
a bunch of writers and photographers were able to track her down. that was interesting. she said she's going to do kind of an open debate. she's going to be off campus and she's going to try and make her way in. there will be other groups protesting off-campus and on campus just seeing how the reaction >> bonds. >> but the protest will be the most interesting thing we will see. >> we are hearing background noises quick. >> they have all the broadcast from the other channels around we are in the middle so the students are getting excited and involved there
>>kandetzki is the >> if you want to read the writings of our guest anr reporters think zero. >> don't forget that of us will be folly in this debate that is going on campus ifl you want to find out about the activities of the bus there is the twitter handle to follow that is how you follow the activities.
>> as we wait for the preview let's look at the history of presidential debates. >> joining us from las vegas to talk about the debate tonight with a historical context, as school of journalism and northeastern university and the author of the book risky business on the campaign trail. >> good morning. >>host: what is the risk involved with hillary clinton and donald trump tofo night with the format quite. >> is always risky. it is live television as you know, anything can happen.. so candidates that are used to being in a controlled setting to put them in a spontaneous kind
choreographed presidential debate and what happens is a they have no control.ep they go with their preparedte remarks and strategy's but you don't know what either person will do. it can be tricky in that regard and we know from history there instances along the way were things did not work out well.is a greaa there is a great deal of risk involved. >> with those long form discussion when did we see that format and what is the history that you referenced quick. >> this is between 2012 barack obama and mitt romney at was very distraught -- i disaster is. six segments 15 minutes eachsi open-ended discussion that gives the candidates latitude to say what they want.
that is one of the toppings there is focus on love moderator but not the format.at. talking not how the is hidates in gauge.e. and what has happened thater you have everything from v visual problems, sweating, s wa. george h. w. bush glancing at his watch or a invading the space of the opponents there's a lot of different things, a performance, visual, and content that shows how risky this format can be for the participants. >>host: if this can be a game changer is it the potential for either candidate? >> because of the high ratings anticipated it does landis on urgency ando
importance to what happens. his starkly -- historical the, you cannot say a particular debate was one or loss but there was a couple instances.that took 1981 debate only that took place one week before election day. and ronald reagan of course one that carter did not so great. and he was reportedly not recovering after that. then it 1960 was the first time ever with kennedy and dixon. he was not prepared the way kennedy was and he really used the opportunity. and that was very close if you factor the debates in past to do with kennedy's success.s. >>host: our guest and historian and professor
looking at a presidential debates and to answer your questions about the format tonight, and the history, we were talking about these that could be a game changers. he is here to take your calls and questions. history tells us when it comes to the third-party candidates, and now modern-day what do you think of that not having a third-party candidate this time quick statement that 15 percent threshold would you have to reach to be invited to the debate makes sense. debates are about the finalist and caretaking
place in the homestretch of the election so candidates have a lot of time so there is time for outsiders to make their case with the public and to earn not place and ross perot was a great example of that. but the idea of having a lot of people on the stage we saw that with that primaries with all of the republican candidates a few open to everybody you will have so many people on the stage nobody gets to say much of anything. that is the counter argument i to open up beyond the 50% threshold. >>host: on the daniel makes itself, a man and a woman on the stage? does that change the dynamics? >> i think it does. first time ever presidential level. twice with vice presidential debates in first in 1984 and
it was pretty rough for the first bush and one of the problems is he was patronizing and she called him out. in 2008 joe biden was much more careful over serra palin to not step on her toes in any way to cause people to perceive he was sexist. so with tonight, one candidate has satellite ofof things that are not very pleasant. very caralready exist. so we very careful not to fall into that trap that he has over the years. >>host: the school of journalism and northeast university and our guest, a third-party support you were
on with our guest. go ahead. >> caller: wish three things if there were more in business but first he can address directly is we need to reduce the sensationalism that comes along with thepe campaign's especially the presidency but not exclusively. i wish that was the topic for debate nyt you think about that as the author of the book? bendy other two were part of the debate. the department of education is sure leading to be reduced by one of the things the federal governmentra should be involved is a well structured six in every curriculum's third through 12th grade said this will add to getting rid of some -- sensationalism they have a better understanding howow government works when they are in 12th grade turning
18. finally, most small businesses fold within the first five years and most have employees of less than 100 people. and they are a retail business. >>host: you put out a lot.ah >> that is an excellent point of teaching of civics. that used to be much more part of the standard education of public-school children in america and the idea of sensationalism and to have a candidate whose peaks in a way that has used language and insults as part of the approach. so the town has not been great.
so engage the ideas but don't attack over their physical appearance or something like that. and that is the good place to start spee14 i just want to say i am a reluctant supporter of secretary clinton. generally i don't supportrous ta the presidency resaw how disastrous that camby but i want to ask professor schroeder of that format to that was clearly one if it was the same and if the subsequent debate if that is the same and version resaw tonight? in it the answer is yes.
the format during 2016 is identical in 2012 the first event -- the first and last h debate that at word open-ended discussion periods of wind in the middle is the town hall debate and the vice-presidential is the slight variation of nine, 10 minute blocks. so it is interesting because the bombing did so badly the first time now by realized that they needed to prepare him for the subsequent debates. he did much better in the same format in the final debate of 2012.people who a and the people better coaching hillary clinton right now are many of the senate coached obama so they have the benefit of using the format before but
anything for the primaries is very different so that is important to waiting's unfolds. >>host: we will show little bit of history and taking a back to october october 22, 2012, the final debates and in this sense the president tries to use humor to make up point we will let you listen to thent exchange. >> our navy is smaller now than any time since 1970. 313 chips we're now what to hundred 85. we are headed to the load to hundreds with the sequestration and that is annt acceptable to me. i want to have the ships required by the navy the air force's smaller since it was founded 1947. we change for the first time since fdr be heavily had the strategy we could fight into conflicts out once now is one conflict.
but this is the highest responsibility of the president of the united states to maintain the safety of the american people. global not cut our budget by $1 trillion that is the combination of cuts and that in my view is taking our future must certain. >> first of all that is not something that i propose but congress has proposed to do well not have been. the budget is not reducing military spending but maintaining. but i think he needs to look at how the military works. you mentioned the need we have few warships than 1960. we also have fewer courses and bayonets because the h nature of the of military has changed we have aircraft carriers, ships that go under water, nuclear submarines. the question is not a game
of battleship to count the ships but what are our capabilities? would sit down with the secretary of navy and chief of staff we determine how are we best able to meet all the fences in a way that also keeps faith with our troops that the veterans have the support they need when they come home. is not refc and that is not reflected in the budget that you put forward because it doesn't work. >>host: professor your thoughts? >> there is a good story about this little quip of courses and bayonets that is something they plant in india because they know that worked really well.bayo so his campaign was ready to go and they started to tweet like mad it plus picked up a lot of people were commenting but as you know
with social media of place for the conversation takes place and the campaigns are fully aware. not just the strategy for winning the debate but also a social media as strategy and the things they hope will catch on. >>host: color good morning spee14. >> caller: i have been voting since then nixon kennedy election but i have to hold wino's this time i think a problem we have is we have to nincompoops running for president. maybe i will vote for donald trump but i don't know. >>host: let's go to texas spee14 spee14 i watch thene
kennedy nixon debate last night and i was intrigued that nixon looked so bad.f each we'll be apparent said each candidate make that difference to the public? >>guest: yes. i think it does. the difference between kennedy and nixon is they have the benefit of history and in no very well what not to do but back then nixon and for a suit that was light gray in color and when he got to the debates the background was almost a same shade so he blended into thehe background and got lost so they changed the debate just before that to get it darker so he but not get lost against bob backdrop. that mistake would never be
made today because they go to such lengths to think of clothing and makeup and hair and tie. and also nixon was hickey was hospitalized you can see it in his face and in his posture he was suffering. in gos he probably should have been at home in bed but if fund it is a debate you have toto be there. >>host: houston texas supporter of the larry clinton spee14. >> that is me again. >>host: i'm sorry. michigan third party supporter spee14 good morning from michigan.mer i am and i'm a former democrat activist but i am voting for the green party and the debates will have no
effect on me. right now a good lead in michigan and if the time comes with a close election and may have to hold reynaud's reluctantly to vote for hillary clinton. but she is no hubert humphrey or phil hart take care and throat third-party weather for the green party or a the libertarian party to express your frustration thank you very much. >>host: we did ask if they are a game changer for those that choose to vote for a
another candidate. >> it generally doesn't happen that way. to reinforce that decision some of what the candidates are doing not just trying to persuade them that fire up and poster the sprues c.s. them of the supporters not just to be enthusiastic but vote on election day. there is the era of a sizable group for whom the debates are useful. but by and large people made up their mind so they are watching to see if he does a good job and vice versa. the debates become almost a way to infuse as well as persuading people.
>> the author of presidential debates, a georgia supporter of hillary clinton. >> good morning.i am sup i am supporting hillary because of the utterances of donald trump.to but when it comes to education at least if the students are exposed to the free trade it would be continued to high-school so at the end of high-school we
will find a useful position. we hope that hillary will hold the debate and not to get into the squalor with donald trump. >> 88 he is always important and with the primary debatesridi they got pretty nasty and ridiculous he wanted think that the children that are watching are getting some value of our system works and getting an idea of politics and government.other, s if they are just slinging mud that goes away.l be so it will be at higherev level tonight.ra >> talk about the role of b thought moderator. there have been several
comments of the idea of a moderator and a fact checkergues ? >> this has been kicked around a lot to as we look at the question of how they are asked. one personal feeling they don't have the time or resources and it can be dispensed with you point out jet was an error but to unravel that set of circumstances. it is hard to do that on myti tv.derato to say the moderator needs to do this or a dash to buy you know you have a finite
amount of time and it needs to be about the candidates if it is a squabble then people will not get the information that they need about the khanates and to reassure the effect checkingof crows and that low be more appropriate and then a better quality. >> and a general sense what rules are agreed upon and? for tonight's event is the a.d. it the the format. fifteen minutes. they know the topics and thought moderator will be
asking some questions of moving along as well. but they are actually pretty loose. does that favor trump or but that is what the equal amount of time will allow you to do. because really it is up to them once the debate is m from the. >> good morning. i see this as the grandth finale of the moral decay of our country the laugh things off but to there are questionable things as they
stand there on the stage and when debbie wasserman shultz pulled that at the dnc then allowed to step down and run for congress nobody looked at that.aid, go to your thing and from i was in a goodwill with my daughter can these people have massive lawsuits and that are allowed as they can flee to world the k. of the system but you have to candidates with very high disapproval ratings. donald trump is higher than have agreed that they are both high.
that is quite a contrast moving to the last election where you ensure that you always have candidates that our popular for one reason or another. >>host: louisiana supporter of donald trump. >> i want to seek donald trump put morals back into the family. protesters are protesting. put and then to put some of in our life. >>host: we have seen protesters. what is the likelihood of the possibility they could be there? to make their are always protesters. uh candidates and -- notice
for he has not been allowed and then you have the protesters with the great american tradition also lot of security measures. >>host: third party supporter. >> good morning. our democracy demands informed choice. with the non-partisan commission with a 15% threshold is designed to limit informed choice for
american people get it. there is up poll commissioned by "usa today"univr that basically says a very large majority, 76 percent would include libertarian candidate johnson 39% would pick them over trump 31% over clinton i know that professor opposes the includes a net - - inclusion of gary johnson with the threshold but explain to the mayor can people that 76 people think he should be included are wrong. >>guest: each debate gave reevaluate who is invited
progress so many people are supporting gary johnson and he catches fire with the public key will be invited. and the town hall with the number of interviews so those opportunities exist to ratify their standing with the american public you were almost at the end of the outlying but of place for the candidates to have the established themselves. with a rise in the polls with the sentiment in the debates but of course,
prospero, because what johnson has not been able to do to excite the lot of voters who have been turned off by the candidates >>host: teaching in northeastern university and taking a look at presidential debates in his book, talking about tonight's debate, debate, mr. schroeder i will show you a clip from october 17, 2000 between al gore and president bush and do you remember entering the debate and talk to me little bit about it. >> to have that strong support by the leadership. i specifically but like to note if governor bush won wast that also highly seeded
differences. >> it is if i can get it done. that is the question of the campaign is about. the philosophy imposition but can you get things done?i c. were. [laughter] i believe that icahn.e >> what about the norwood bill corrects to mexico the professor gets up so talk about these intimidation factor and the psychology involved. >> so that he would intimidate bush but it did just the opposite becauset the worst thing about that he gives him the nod but the tower hall audience laughs so he is reduced to a laughingstock but the storye behind that during the preparation he was supposed
to do that. remade that maneuver and then they said don't do that during the actual debate but he did it anyway. the reason that he preparethe so we've got those ideas that will not work said they rejected that movie did it anyway. >>host: mark cuban was invited to sit in the front row there was talk about gennifer flowers showing up does that make any of theence? is not part of the psychology game? and the last thing that they do and with jennifer flowers
somebody who writes there was the rumor 1982 that one of the of bush clinton debates that they would plant jennifer flowers in the audience to embarrass clinton of course, we still talk about her showing up and it is part of the psychological intimidation. but it doesn't add up. >>host: but they did not invite jennifer flowers just to make that point. supporter of hillary clinton >> whatever the outcome of the damage has been done to our country with so muchso popularity but that being centcom professor, donald
trump and that the war chant du business school but he went as the entered graduate school and the same reason nobody remembers him for. a smat so that he is so smart but in fact, you know, what i am talking about. >> barrett is a lot about uh candidates and there has been a lot done with a donald trump biography it is harder in the sense he does not have a political record. so what you talk aboutparticulay
without emphasis on that particularly. s so to look up the little l more information but especially with a nonti politician running for office with the rest of the biography.r a traditiona and then just look at how they voted pet i do think that these details are relevant. >> philadelphia of pennsylvania as a donald trump supporter. >> good morning. do you feel that donald trump was exposed will they dropped that bombshell? >> i have no idea what you n are talking about.
items are a -- i am sorry. >>host: what about the w performance for both candidates and two has the half dash year bar quick. >> we come from such different places, the advantage is heat is a creature of reality to say that is a high stakes for of reality. that is a role he has livedton,e in and is that held. clinton is not unnatural and has been on tv and what it does not relish that the way he does as a platform to put yourself across. so, being added from a much
more methodical way and intuitive.cu is a culture clash with the pianist -- venous vs mars. >> with that with that format. >> you do have to know your subjects with that discussion ., you better have something to say and something substantive. that is one of the things toe make sure they know what is going on in the news with the hot-button issues of the day but the advantage for hillary clinton is that she already has bending government for so long with these issues and one of the
what do you think aboutr that? these are political candidates talking about his tax return i did like the conclusion of being transparent when not to bear anything to the public. with the political animals but our job is not too except at at base bellevue and demanding of the tax returns. i don't think asks too much of people who want to be president of the united states. >>host: looking at the first 30 minutes of the debate house that matters
for those involved the talk about what history tells us the sustainable formats. >> so what is the debate? it is a live television show. partici because of those two participants in this intense. so work of a clock of first half-hour in the world of social media. th that is more important than ever. in dallas the public weighs in as well.r is a this is a chance to be in your favor.
and to keep it going because the mistakes made with the debates have been at about two-thirds and the '01 hour mark when they get tired before they get the final timentum in the homestretch. of how they use the time. and paid too rehearsed to the extent that they do.o. so if they have that experience walking through the 90 minutes and how that affects them on energy. >>host: undecided voter from new york. >> one to ask your opinion if they used to run the debates they set the rules and what they did that they
could not control the debate . howdy you feel about at and europeans about that quite. >> there's always uhte attention about food drives the car.did the deba and between the '70s and '80s there was a lot of problems with the campaign.ing c to choose a panelist the league of women voters want because they just kept voters hg. to have more clout they really didn't get a grand representative shot -- rickshaw but that has the cycle to get a little stronger and there was an
effort to take the debates away from the commission is essentially to give control to the campaigns. j the commission does a very good job to stand up to insist on the format with the calendar and the location.what is being but they have not done what they used to do. which was really push back against the sponsors. -- >>host: what history does it have with the political parties? >> when it was formulated it was a bipartisan commission they were the two former committee chairs or to be
the independent commission so that has become over the past 20 years, the structure of the debate.commission the debate commission is misunderstood but the sense is they have the right reasons for doing what they do it isn't an evil group ofle people. but this is controversial so i understand why people have a reaction. but it is true that it started off but then they realized that over the years they move to a more independent model.
>> basically it is ridiculous if you talk about the u.s. presidency.debate a . . >> they can pull up information on practically anybody. these are people who have more resources than it. so to to sit there and say yes, you don't have enough time to make the time.. at the resources. it's enough money between the two candidates that they can get the resources. the problem problem is we don't really want
to know the facts. we want to put on a façade, that is just what we do.g, it is not >> yes, part of what happens here is is not just the a candidates and moderator putting on the show for everybody.e people, voters have to take responsibility too. i. i think the idea fact checking, you can do that and as the cards have said it's not that hard. i would hope that as people are watching the debates if there something that sounds fishy but they want to know more about they would take the time to fact check. you can also do on your twitter feed you can follow other fact checkers that will be providing real-time fact checks during the debate. i think that is a more efficient way of doing it. then having the moderator shoehorn it in. moderators have other things too worry about as the debate unfolds. >> professor, we have a viewer off of twitter, one more
question about the commission if you don't mind engaging. it's asking who chooses the members of the commission? >> there are two co- commissioners like the top people, one is mike mccurry who is one of bill clinton's press secretary, the others frank. [inaudible] , the head of the republicanan national committee who has been ja on from the get-go. also janetan brown who is more responsible for the kind of administration of the debate commission. then there are, i don't remember how many of the top of my head, commissioners. they head, commissioners. they are invited to become commissioners, they are invited by that administrative structure of the debate that i just named. they try to get people from a variety of backgrounds on the political spectrum. >> if you want to learn about the commission, the debate.org
is the is the website where the commission on presidential debate. they have information on who's grande commission a background. that website is debate.org. let's hear from steve, grand island, nebraska. a third-party supported. >> hello. this might force congress to rein in the excessive executive power. i think the u.s. could survive for years of either clinton or trumpet but it will be along for years. both candidates are dangerous. clinton dangerous. clinton will be predictable, trump will not. >> interesting point. of course, this question on executive power, a lot of that is it just restoration of a president that the gridlock in congress. if congress is not doing its job then it is goingst
to tempt the white house to be and take a more proactive role. >> professor, you talked about the viewership, how much of that viewership is going to be done es devices rather than traditional television?in >> i can give you numbers yet but we will have a measure of that after the effect. every o election cycle more and more are watching it either with the second screen, which means on to be and also on a mobile device or laptop, or exclusively exclusively on a laptop or mobile device. you can watch it on xbox and all sorts of ways beyond the standard television venue to take in that debate. all of that that is going to get factored in. also around the world. i do a lot of lecturing outside of the united states about the stuff. i am amazed am amazed at how many people in other countries plan, in europe for instance plan to t get up in the middle of the night to watch the debate live. the debate is more available, they are more available than they have ever been in our history. i think that is a great thing.
you don't have to even watch it at the time it is on. it's going to be there for you whenever you are going to take a look. >> steve, we heard -- let's hear next from margaret. in chapel hill, hill, tennessee, supporter of hillary clinton. >> hello. first of all i greet with a guye about the league of women voters but my question is to the two of you. heart,uld you keep a straight face when that poor woman, bless her heart, called in and said that she was going to vote for trump because she wanted to get morals back in the white house. i am really going to have to give it to you to on that one. how could you do that? have a nice day. >> will she mention family values, trump has had three families, so i guess he knows a little something about the family. >> and that question professor,
a lot of the issues for bothgu candidates, how much of that is going to overshadow actual substance in the debate over topic? >> i hope not a lot. i have have to say though, one thing thatey debates do is that they are not just policy discussion, it is also a personality exercise. one of the great things about a debate is it shows us that candidates under pressure.lace. we don't get an opportunity of how to see they would react in a tense moment as president, so so i debate puts them in an awkwarb place. it is like a job interview. you go in for a job interview, you are on your best behavior and you know they're going to ask you all of the stuff. you have to respond in a way that sells your candidacy so to speak. but it is a pressure situation. i think that is good. i think having think having them up there side-by-side is good. then everybody can comparison shop. you can see how they answer the same question. does one look prepared? is the other one just there for show?
so i think the debate that serve a purpose that goes beyond the purpose of just a position from a policies that are being proposed. it is a test of their personal qualities in a way that nothing else on the campaign trail is. >> good morning to al in inglewood, florida, a supportive hillary clinton. >> hello. i am calling because i know the man. i was born several miles from him. we met in the teenage years and he was always surrounded by s people, older people and they were doing his bidding so to speak. they would throw a handball court but we would never let that happen again. later in life, life come in the 80s when i had retired from the police department i was at a party in manhattan and it is sore, i will mention his firstb, name, bernie.
in any event there is about 60 people and who shows up at this party on announced in it on invited but the donald. the reason i recognized him because he was not announced is that envious stare and the staring at everyone there. >> okay. and one more call, we'll hear from henry, new york. henry, new york. supportive hillary clinton. hello. >> hello. good morning. this comment is directed to the professor.r. and if you said that the moderator quote has more important things on their mind then fax and then you talked about a secondary source such as twitter to check it. especially in this environment with a man who built a campaignn against misrepresentation, that's that's wrong for you topu say that. >> okay, you're you're breaking up a little bit.respond. >> my wording may not have been
great. i don't mean to say that facts are not important, they are very important. i think that the journalist who are writing about this and covering it need to be right on top of that stuff.an if statements are being made in an inaccurate way that needs to come out. i'm just saying it is a tv show, the moderator has adu tough job and a lot of things to do.t if you start engaging in fact wo checks and you have a candidate who is going to say something in the debate it is nothing but that it's no longer a debate between two candidates at the back and forth between the moderator and a candidate. i think that is the problem. the candidates can fact check to each other, the journalist can't, well, it should fact to check all of the statements of the candidates are making. to put them on a moderator in the live debate it is not a realistic expectation that they are going to be able to fact check every statement and every
word by every candidate in the course of 90 minutes. if if they did that is all the program would be. >> our guest teaches journalism at northeastern university and also the author of the book, "presidential debate, risky business on the campaign trail four thank you for you time. >> thank you very much, it's my pleasure. >> we are about two hours and 20 minutes from the beginning of the first presidential debate of campaign 2016 from hofstra university in new york. our live coverage gets underway in less than one hour at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span networks. we have a preview program and live on the debate on c-span and c-span2. also c-span radioactive you can listen to that and watch a long online at c-span.org. the new york times reports a couple of polls poles out today about the presidential race. declaring the race too close to
call. it's latest national poll of likely voters found mrs. clinton edging mr. trump by a margin of 47% - 46% in a head-to-head matchup. in a separate poll of likely voters from monmouth university showing mrs. clinton with the leader four percentage points in a four-way contest. a month month ago mrs. clinton led by seven points. roll call reports today that on the senate floor democratic leader mr. reid declared mr. trump a racist. some >> donald trump, the senator does something -- and then he describes his action. his words are hateful, it
intolerant, biggest, extremist, prejudice, to name but a few. yet there's eyes one word yet there is one word that many of the press conspicuously avoid, racist. they never label trump as a racist. he is a racist. donald trump is a racist. racist is a term i do not throw around lightly. we all have, with rare exception have said things that are not politically correct.e it a but i don't know of anybody that when that happens doesn't acknowledge it and if necessary, apologize quickly. donald trump it doesn't believe the racist things he says is wrong. he says with full intent to mean to demean and to to. down. [inaudible] the media is not holding trumpso
accountable. so i do reporters stand for calling trump what he is, a racist. it is not as if trumps racism is new. his his bigotry has been on display since early days of his campaign. when donald trump was stillmpanw working by his father's side, the second-in-command, the department of justice slap the company with a civil rights lawsuit. why? f because they deserved it.s by undercover federal officers in the new york on that trump discriminate against potential tenants and rejecting tenets from housing from african-americans and puerto ricans. trump has even had a secret report service for the discriminatory practice. as the post has washington post has reported. he would use quote such as tenant
he would direct blacks and puerto ricans within buildingste with mostly white tenants and would lead them to other places with more minorities. he cheated, course bankruptcy, did anything he could to cheat people out of money. but he also in the process the racism came to the forefront. trump was accused of makingmploe african-american employees sit on the floor when he didn't want to see them. one employee said and here's a direct quote from mr. brown, when donald and ivana came to the casino the bosses would order all of the blacks -- ladies i was a teenager but i remember, he he put us all in the back.
". trump was fine $200,000 in an new jersey casino control commission for that act discussing racism. in 1990s john o'donnell,es former president trump plaza and the casino wrote a book about his time with donald trump. he frequently denigrated african-americans, he remembers trump saying to his accountantsu and i quote, i have black accountants at trump plaza, black eyes getting my money, hate it. the only kind of people i want counting my money are short guys and -- every day. ".e only these are words from donald trump's mouth. mouth.
any kind of people i want our short guys. that's what he said. speaking of another african-american he told ivana and another, i think the guy is lazy. and laziness is a trait in blacks, it really it really is, i believe that. that is donald trump. he thinks blacks are lazy and they cannot help it because it is one of their traits. trump did not deny it.e, the he later admitted in another quote the stuff that was written about me is probably true. racis since he became involved in presidential politics is racism has reached even new heights. trump led the so-called birth certificate to delegitimize her first african-american president. lester announces
candidacy for president and he denounced mexican says criminals, drug dealers and rapists. consider all the despicable things he has done this year mus alone. he has reviewed calls with muslims in the united states. he insulted a goldstar dad and mother who are muslims, and their son was killed in battle. but donald trump did not question her mother and he said i guess she not forbidden to speak because of his lawn.from and then take on david duke who is still in politics, he had retreated a message from nazing sympathizers and white supremacist and he viewed donale
trump -- born in indiana, but but trump did not like that because he had a mom and dad for he said he should be disqualified from the case. speaker right called trumps r attack, quote from speaker right, a textbook definition of a racist comment. t this is from the united states house of representatives speaker who acknowledges that his republican presidential nominee is a racist. house yet, here we we are seven weeksn from election day and theg speaker of the house, the senate republican leader both endorsing this recent man. we should not support a man -- is a definition of a racist. speaking of example, this will
be their legacy, none of them, they have plenty of to add to ts that. when we refuse to denounce lana donald trump's actions as racist as propaganda and normalizing his hay. it's time for republicans toto stop accepting his racism in time for reporters and journalists to be honest withca the american people. hello, america the truth. donald trump is a racist. >> so again, our programming tonight the debate from hofstra, university. our preview programming starting at about 30 minutes. after the debate your phone calls in reaction. we will re-air the the debate in its entirety at 11:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span. more of
your phone calls, that is part of our complete coverage of the c-span networks. as we wait for that to be preview to get under way, here's part of the white house briefing from today. it includes what president obama plans to do during the debate. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> good afternoon everybody. happy monday. i do not have any announcements of the topsoil get straight your question.
>> i wanted to ask about tonight's debate and in particular how does the president plan to watch it with family? overstaffed? by himself? what may be may be his biggest concern going into the debate and there's been a lot of talk about what the role the moderator and whether the moderator should be the fact checker. does they have have any thoughts about that? >> why would say that this evening will be similar to other fall monday evenings in the white house residence. which is the president will be working straight with the television on in the background. the one difference will be that instead of monday night football there be a little more politics being discussed in the context of the debate. give the president some opportunity to answer questions lester from abc where he talked about how important he was, or how important it is, he believed
for secretary clinton to talk about those aspects of her career and provide insight so people understand exactly what motivates her to seek the office of presidency. he vesely believes that she has a strong case to make so that's why he spoken publicly so many times to support her campaign. with regard to the moderators, there's plenty of advice going around with other candidates in the moderator, i have not spoken to the president about any advice he may have for it tonight. i think anybody who has spent time around lester knows that he is somebody is always well prepared and i suspect that having spent a decent portion of the last several decades in broadcast journalism that he will perform well even under the intense spotlight of a presidential debate. >> i wanted to ask about that as well. seems like like the news reports are indicating that --
by the hour. can you provide us an update on what the administration is doing to try to stop the carnage and is it warming to the prospect and prospects of expanding the sanctions regime? >> kevin, the situation in syria continues to worsen. the situation in syria has been terrible. bloodshed has been sickening. we have seen seen over the weekend it has just gotten worse. i think anybody when you look at these reports whether they are an official with the united
states government or just a human being reading the news, understanding that told that this violence is taking on the lives of so many innocent people you have to be deeply concerned about it. the president certainly is. what we have seen from the assad regime and the russians is a concerted campaign to strike civilian targets, to bomb civilians into submission. it has taken a variety of forms and over the weekend we saw the specific targeting of the headquarters or staging areas used by the white helmets, the relief organization, the first
responders in syria that are just trying to provide for the basic needs and safety and well-being of citizens who are caught in the crossfire. there also military strikes against the facilities that ensure that civilians in eastern aleppo have access to drinking water. the idea of weapon icing access to a clean water supply for civilians is beyond the pale. people of good conscious around the world should speak up and are speaking up. i know there is vigorous discussion about this at the un security council just last night. i surely would encourage you to take a look at the
remarks from ms. powers where she talked about the situation and tries to make a very forceful case about the consequences of the situation for the rest of the international community and how important it is for the international community to speak with one voice, in condemning these actions and not allowing these norms to be eroded. it is clear what the consequences will be for russia as well. they are drying themselves even deeper into it a secretary and conflict inside of syria. they are increasingly isolated in the international community. they. they will have to expend significant additional resources to shore up their efforts there. these are resources that are not an ample supply in russia. we know their economy is struggling and their currency reserves have plummeted in the last couple of years. we know that both the risk to
russia and their presence not just in syria, it also poses a risk of to russia back home because we know this kind of violence and chaos that is being shown in syria only feels extremism in syria and around the world. this is the choice that russia has made and one they will have to account for. >> any warning for sanctions regime regarding supporters ernie but he does business? >> the sanctions have always been a tool on the table available to the united states. the concern we have with the current congressional proposal being debated is that it would deploy the sanctions essentially unilaterally. what we have found is that the sanctions tool is most
effectively used when it is deployed in close coordination with our allies and partners run the world by carefully cordoning the limitation of sanctions we can measure the sanctions have officially served as a force multiplier. the kinds of financial penalties that can be imposed by the united states are multiplied when they are imposed in close coordinated with our allies and partners and that is what we have typically sought to do. we have also refrain from discussing in detail or discussing in advance the detailed aspects of our sanctions strategy primarily because we do not want to telegraph our intentions so as to allow the target of the sanctions to take action that would circumvent our action.
so if and when we make a policy decision to move forward on imposing additional financial implications against the assad regime that will only be discussed after the decision has been made. >> on syria, you said that russia will have to kind of answer for their actions. i wonder who is russia going to answer to? i was just trying to get, does the administration have a specific plan now that the cease-fire has failed? is there going to be a change in force? is there going to be a change change in action from the administration? other new things you are considering doing or taking it syria? >> i don't have any announcements at this point. i think with regard to russia what i would say is simply that russia will have to account for
their actions in the context of the consequences they are likely to provoke. russia's further isolated in the national community. i think that was on display in detail at the united nations kearney council meeting last night. russia is going to have to invest more on their efforts inside of syria in order to prop up the presence they have there, in order to further shore up the assad regime. in russia is going to have to deal with the fallout because their actions are feeling fueling actions around the world that i think you would have a hard time arguing that are in
the national interest for they simply do not seem part of a coordinated strategy. again, that is something that the russians themselves will have to account for. >> want to ask a question in light of an fbi report that violent crime in the u.s. increased in 2015. i wanted to get an administration response to that and also in general in the past couple of days we have seen well today we saw a shooting that i think nine were injured, we saw shooting over the weekend and out mall in washington that may have killed five. the shootings, they continue to happen, it seems like they get attention but not as much maybe, maybe there may be some interest in that it seems like it might be connected to international -- but then he think it happen and then it fades quickly. is the ministration concern that
the country is becoming somewhat numb to the violence and to these type of shootings? >> let's start first with the statistics. what the numbers indicate is that since president obama took office in 2009 the crime rate, the violent crime rate in the united states has fallen 15%. the violent crime rate in the united states is near historic low's. there is ample evidence to indicate that even in those communities where we sun increase last year in 2015, so far in 2016, and some of the cities we have seen violent crimes fall. so i think this is an indication that the country is safer as measured by the violent crime
rate than it was in any year under the previous four presidents. now there is of course on more that we can do to fight violent crime. president has advocated additional resources for our men and women in law-enforcement. the president has advocated for improved trainings, not just hiring additional police officers but also improved the training and resources that can be used to make our men and women in law enforcement even more effective than they already are. the president has epic cater for criminal justice reform and there is evidence to say that that would further reduce the recidivism rate in this country which would have a positive impact in reducing violence.
so we have made important progress in this area, the country is safer under president obama than it has been under previous presidents as measured by the violent crime rate. but there is more we can and should do. there is no area where the president has been more outspoken. then taking action on common sense gun safety measures that would make it harder for criminals and others who should not have them to buy a gun. we have never made the case that passing a law like one that would close the background check loophole would prevent every act of gun violence, but there is plenty of evidence that indicates it could have a positive impact on reducing incidence of gun violence and we could do all of that without undermining the constitutional right of law-abiding americans.
so the person is going to continue to be outspoken on that. moving forward with regard to shooting incidents that you referred to of the last 72 hours or so, a local law-enforcement in both situations for an update, i believe about the f pi in washington state has indicated elsewhere that there's no connection to international terrorism at this point. that investigation continues. continues. i know the local law-enforcement of authorities have indicated they have a suspect in custody so that investigation continues. but this cycle that you have cited of a mass shooting, intense public interest for a short period of time and then attention migrating to other places is not a new one. and one we have seen in this country that predates president obama's inauguration.
it is when the president has expressed deep frustration about. ultimately if the president has indicated, enough citizen are going to have to demonstrate enough passion for this issue and persuade the congress to pursue a different approach and actually consider commonsense measures that will protect second amendment rights of law-abiding americans but do more to ensure or at least make it harder for individuals who do not be able to get a gun from getting one. >> is the president talking about anything else regarding gun violence. >> nothing at this point. the president and his team are always reviewing available options. the president made a big announcement at the beginning of this year about using his executive authority to make it harder for people to
obtain a firearm a a gun show for example without undergoing a background check. and the situation is worth the ball is in the court of the united states congress. ultimately they will have to hear from the american people that this is a priority. i think that it's only way we are going to get the attention of a sufficient number of congress to take serious action. >> is seems like even at this point you're not really now that he may take additional executive action. >> i would not rule that out. >> and the administration has no use words about syria, barbarism, unacceptable in outrage and you've also said trying to forge a cease-fire is would be a test. haven't they already feel that test miserably. >> that's why think that is fair to say. when you have a country that is using its military might to prop up a murderous regime, target
the water supply civilians, target the headquarters that are used by first responders, to target refugee camps, to target humanitarian aid convoys were in any of those instances to support a regime that is doing exactly that, i think that indicates they failed the test. i think the question now is our point is russia prepared to try different strategy. again again the strategy they are currently pursuing this one that only further deepens their involvement in a secretary being conflict and it is hard to see how that benefits russia's national security or benefits the russian people. our concern is furthering that conflict only fuels extremism and poses a threat to the region of the world. that is why the president has worked hard to build and lead a
number of coalition that is putting significant pressure to isil and other extremists operating inside of syria to keep the american people safe and keep and protect our national security interest. it is is unfortunate that the russians are pursuing a strategy that is in such direct conflict with that. >> when you hear the foreign minister say that there's still a chance that a cease-fire could be worked out, due due at all take those words seriously? >> i think we've been to the point where we evaluate russia's approach to the situation not by listening to the words of their fastener, but by watching the actions of the military. unfortunately in recent days we have seen their military support or directly engage in the kind of acts that are condemned by the civilized world. that is not indicative of a country that is serious about
pursuing peace, or even about pursuing an approach that seems to be in the national security interest of their country in the world. >> i will point to say about establishing the seas were alive and try to go through the motions if they've already done this, the. >> i don't think the administration is going to be in a position of apologizing for pursuing peace. the truth is, in the context of the negotiations that we have engaged in with the russians, the united states and our international partners have not been in a position a position where we have had to make any concessions. it is because our intense skepticism and doubts about russia's credibility that we insisted the russians live up to their commitments before the united states would follow
through on the actions we know the russians are seeking. and that was military cooperation. so the united states has not had to make any concessions in order to pursue peace. we were quite clear from the beginning that our efforts against extremists were going to continue unabated and russia wanted to cooperate with those efforts they would have to demonstrate a commitment to reducing the violence and allowing the flow of humanitarian assistance to reach those who were in need. they have not lived up to that bargain which means they have not got my kind of military cooperation they would like to see. but the united states and our coalition partners have continued, unabated in our campaign to degrade and ultimately destroy isil and apply pressure and take other extremists off the battlefield as well.
>> when you look at the debate is the administration of advice for donald trump? >> even if we did i'm confident it would go unheard. >> okay. >> thank you. >> can only talked about nafta, do we have a latest count on congressional support for the bill? it looks like it's going to as mitch mcconnell says override the president's veto the first time this week? >> i'm not here to make any predictions or provide any vote to count. we continue to make our case to the members of congress. we have we have acknowledged from the beginning this is going to be an uphill fight. there has been some high-profile members of congress that have indicated some openness to our position and some unease with the consequences moving forward with the legislation that congress has a pass. so you saw congressman thornberry from texas right to later. he somebody not someone we regularly look to to support the
presidents case but he stood up to his promise. we saw a similar letter from congressman adam smith. he is a democrat from washington state. he is somebody who is a more consistent supporter of the president's policies but he has arrived at a similar conclusion. i think that is an indication of the principle nation that the president has argued. as we know, to members, to votes is not enough to support a veto in the united states house of representatives. there there is important work ahead of us. fortunately the congressmen are viewed as the two influential members of the house republican conference. they are well regarded for their experience and knowledge of these issues. hopefully they are making a case among the collies as well. we would surely benefit from their advocacy. >> has the white house discuss
that? >> i don't have an update on those, conversations. obviously i think as acknowledged last week, given the significant consequences for a country's relations with saudi arabia you would be surprised to hear that the saudia government has been in touch with the obama administration about this piece of legislation. but i also hasten to add that we've heard from a lot of other countries to who have expressed similar concerned about the potential impact of this bill. there is a letter that was provided by the european union voicing their deep concerns about the impact this legislation would have on the u.s. relationship with countries around the world. so it's not just our partners in saudi arabia concerned about this bill, some of our closest allies in europe are concerned about
this and that's consistent with the argument we have made that we are not just consumed about the impact this bill would have on the u.s. relationship with us saudi arabia, were deeply concerned about the impact the bill it have the u.s. relationship on countries around the world. that's why the president be toted last week. a massive basis for the argument that were making to members of congress that they should sustain the president's veto. >> on crime, is is the president disappointed overall on the idea that crime has gone up by 3.9% even though it is still at historically low levels? is he disappointed that? >> i think the president is gratified that the united states is currently in a period where violent crime is at or near historic flows. is there more that we can do to try to prevent more violent crime? yes and that means we can provide additional resources for law-enforcement, pass commonsense gun safety legislation, reformer criminal justice system in a way that would have a positive impact on recidivism rates. there is is more we can do in the president has put those kind of efforts at
the front of his domestic agenda. so the president believes there is more we can do but he certainly is gratified that our country is benefiting from historically low or violent crime rates at or near historical low. >> and then on the debate, was the last time the president spoke with hillary clinton and will be he calling her before to assure good luck's? >> i'm not where bennett calls the president has planned for today. but it will give him an opportunity to see secretary clinton a couple times, not last week but before. i don't know if they had a detailed debate strategy discussion, but the president has some experience in going head-to-head with clinton in the context of a debate. she performed quite well in those settings and he expects her to do the same tonight.
>> i'm wondering -- [inaudible] >> is he going to get personally involved in congress question makes. >> a, i don't have a detailed accounting of what the presidents it involvement in the slapping effort. the presidencies are well known. he is had an opportunity to convey to members of congress at different points so there's no doubt about the position that the ministration is taking and there's no doubt about the personal views that the president when it comes to this issue. i think you made it quite clear not just in the active vetoing the legislation but in explaining in the statement exactly why he had chosen to veto the bill. >> so there's no ambiguity about the president's position. what he says in private is reflected in his statements on
this. the vote could be higher if those who express some unease on private get back to the bill have that show up in their public votes as well. >> so some of these who are wavering do you think maybe that would help them make that decision public if they had a personal call from the president? >> may maybe. you go from a situation where you members of congress would say i didn't take this position because the president asked me to come i took it because it's the right one. so each individual members of congress has their own approach to these kind of questions. for anybody who is wondering exactly what the presidents position is on the spell, i think we have been on ambiguous about the deep concern that he has about the impact this bill would have on our relationships
with countries around the world including the relationship we enjoyed some of our closest allies. i will point out as i have before, the president is not the only national security expert in america to harbor these concerns. there high-profile legal and national security efforts who has expressed their concern with this bill, even president george w bush's attorney general casey has expressed his concern of this bill and has indicated publicly what those concerns are. so we certainly welcome that show bipartisan support from experts who have made clear. >> i know last week you accept the frustration that flint gate wasn't included -- >> i think what i indicated yesterday that, not yesterday, friday i indicated friday that the presidency that congress has
more work to do. and he is disappointed that after months of suggesting that congress did have an important role to play in providing significant assistance to flint and other communities that have been enduring lead contamination in their drinking water that there is a role for congress to play in helping communities address that problem. the present has been making a case for months and is disappointed that we have not seen the kind of congressional response that the president believes the situation deserves. so there are plenty of democrats up there that advocate for the kind of approach that the president believes is appropriate for congress to pursue. we just need to get the republicans committed to this effort to. if we do we'll be able to mobilize a response that the american people and the people
of flint readily deserves. >> first on the fda fbi report, as you know that's an annual report which compiled the statistics from my assumed tens of thousands of jurisdictions. >> in responding to the findings of the report you just declare that america is safer under president obama than it has been under any of the last four presidents and taking us back to 1981. since law-enforcement is chiefly a local endeavor, are you asserting some role for president obama and a historically low crime rates that we have today? >> there certainly have been steps the obama administration has taken to support local law-enforcement. but i've been asked this question the other way which is
why hasn't the obama administration done more to impose some of our policy solutions on local law enforcement agencies. and at each turn i have noted long-standing tradition in the united states of delegating responsibility for law-enforcement to the local level. >> sorry you asserting some cause of the role of president obama for the. >> i don't think there is anyone direct causation that we can draw but i think he's happy with the gains that his administration is made. >> since you asserted that the number show that americans are safer from violent crime now than they have been at any time in the last 35 years, is it safe for us also to conclude that americans are safer from mass shootings now than at any time? >> i think that data indicates,
why don't know what the data indicates. we would have - the fbi about that. we can take a look at the numbers and see what they say. >> lastly, when historians look back on this episode they seek to re-create anything that was going on which culminated in the president's veto or perhaps being overrun to further developments at one time or another, will they justifiably see that there was at work something that he might, for lack of a better term the saudi bombing? is saudi lobby? >> i think there's been a lot of reports about the saudi government tried to mobilize their friends and allies to express their opinion about the spell. with regard to the presidents decision i think we've been quite clear that his decision is motivated by the impact that
this billet have not just on saudi arabia but our countries around the world. so i don't know, i can't speak to what expense there was aggressive lobbying efforts here in the administration of a base on public reporting i have seen their peers to be a rather intense effort by the saudi government to lobby capitol hill and it remains to be seen how successful that would be. >> does the president believe in the existence of either a israel lobby? >> this is the first time i have used the words saudi lobby, maybe that means i need need to get out more. but that's the first time i've heard of it. >> have not asked him that question, i think it is clear that the israeli government has worked hard to build relationships in washington that allow them to exert influence on capitol hill. but i don't know if that crosses
the threshold of be in the lobby are not or just a country that is a close ally of the united states and has friends on both sides of the aisle, that clearly is true. >> in terms of timing, how much time do you think you have with this veto override? >> once and i know expert when it comes to legislative procedure, so i would probably refer you to one of my counterparts in leader mcconnell's office to describe how long it will be before the senate takes action to consider the president's veto and to hold a vote to override it. from there it will go straight to the house of representatives and i'm not sure how long that takes. i'm not sure how long it would then take the house to act on it. >> in terms of trying to discuss this matter with legislators, you obviously have some sense of
urgency that you don't have unlimited hours. days? >> our approach has been to make a case to members of congress, i don't know how long we have to take. somebody who observes the legislative process, sometimes things that seem like they should take a long time on capitol hill take quickly, things that things that seem should be done quickly take an inordinate amount of time. i don't know how long this will take. certainly, since the president received the bill 13 days ago we have been, 13 or 14 days ago we have been engaged in an effort to persuade members of congress that they should sustain the president's veto and consider a different approach. >> with a cr, what is the status of that as you perceive it in terms of timing? do you see that coming together, do you see, do you think it's
possible? >> i'm quite reluctant to predict congressional outcomes these days. there is a deadline looming before congress, september 30 at the end of the fiscal year. it seems it seems like at least every year of the obama presidency we spent some portion of the last week in september worrying whether or not congress is going to do its job and get its act together and ensure that the government will be funded and not shut down. unfortunately, our republicans who promised to get congress moving again if they were handed the reins of the congress have broken that promise. they have failed and wait once again, here are four days before the deadline know we are publicly wondering if congress is going to fulfill their most basic responsibility. that is are they going to succeed in passing the budget to keep the government open. while we have seen time and again is a reliance on the part
of republicans to try to do things in partyline votes. that just does not work. i think it accounts for many failures over the course of the last several years. they're going to have to work with democrats in both the house and senate, it appears to pass this budget. they better get to work. >> are they still monitoring the situation in charlotte? >> i've not seen an announcement from the department of justice said about investigation investigation but if there is an announcement will come from the. >> there's some accuracy that there is an investigation underway. >> i've not seen that statement from the department of justice but you can check with them. >> a muslim the debate tonight, you said it will be on the background, is at the point the
president, is it is sheer sense of coverage, i'm sure you're aware of. [inaudible] >> i would say that. this is an important moment in the campaign. anybody who has worked on the campaign at any level understand how significant candidate debates are. it's number two day for candidates candidates to square often speak for themselves. to answer questions and describe their experience and their vision and priorities. look there hasn't been a lot of space for that in the context of this election so it's a rather unique opportunity for that kind of discussion to take place. i think people are quite interested to see how individual candidates handle themselves. >> go to c-span.org this evening for the presidential debate on your desktop, phone or tablet. watch live strains of the debate of video online on demand. use
video video clipping tools to create video clips of your favorite debate moments to share in social media. listen to the debate live on the c-span radio app, it's free to download from the app store google play. live coverage of the presidential debate this evening on c-span.org and the c-span radio app. >> c-span created by america's cable television companies. . . >> >> on the backdrop behind
them words from the declaration of independence. as against guarded our word of the format for tonight there are no opening statements a 90 minute debate divided into six, 15 minute questions or blocks the questions and then selected by our moderator and the candidates will have to minutes to respond to questions then they will have an opportunity to respond to each other. we were hoping to achieve lincoln douglas style were they are debating one another and also the topics tonight are in three very broad categories for domestic and international issues each of these will get to of the 15 minute segments, american direction , achieving prosperity, and securing america.
joining us inside the debate hall how the candidates have been preparing to as a national reporter for the of and national post this is a whole new world with the social media that has been abuzz with the of poll numbers and which percentage of americans are viewing this also the fact the audiences ever bigger than before in history so what are the candidates' thinking about as they walked into the great hall quick. >> right now there is a lot of mind games being played on asides. but strategically bioscience talk about what they are doing and what they are not doing to affect the expectations game felony clinton has been spending a lot of debate preparation near her home and most
recently a long island talking a little more her very close aide some of the changes that have been made including playing a more subdued in donald trump but on the inside a say he isn't doing all what he isn't spending a lot of time preparation because he wants to be authentic self and all of this expectation game for both campaigns think that they will meet a different kind of candidate they and people will see. so it is the debate or performance. >>, trump is not a politician is as the aids are collecting information
to decide how they will lead approach it so they compiled questions to give them the authentic interpretation as a businessman and a negotiator and one of those people were former wall street ceo the other person someone who got to know donald trump who was the ghostwriter other his book the art of the deal and at what point if faced with that particular question for howled a clinton get under his skin or a businessman who has experienced the dealmaking table approach a political event like this. they knew what would be different because donald trump is not a politician that hillary clinton is used to spin across a - - also
chic likes debating in the evenings. >> right last night she was practicing until all love and a clock that night that matches how late she will have to be out tonight so this will go later is a stem and the test -- stamina test you don't get a break or to sit down. you can have a set of water but not much else so that will show how much they can't take it. >> who against to listen in person and how does that affect what happens on stage >> the audience will be a mixed of the hofstra university invite teas and supporters of both candidates and the commission a presidential debates.
in the first drop right off the of the stage within eyeshot of those candidates will be people who were invited by the campaign themselves to send a particular message. with the clinton side there is a lot of talk of mark q. been nemesis of donald trump front and center better earlier tonight in the spin room he came again and it was a huge debate right next to him was the donald trump vice-presidential running mates and a set the tone for the environment where the candidates try to rattle each other to put people directly in front of them that they think maybe can get under their skin. >> maybe that he would dare to need all donald trump
with that president clinton scandal area -- share of jennifer flowers that turned out not to be true. >> is sounds like the campaign did not extended invitation to her although she had proactively said that but the thing about that situation is it demonstrated the point of what the campaign was trying to do. trying to get donald trump to react the way his aides did not want him to. they want trump to be himself but stay in line to focus on the issues. so they don't let him go off on to any type of tangent that will show deacon
actually do the job. >> one-two tell people where first-time watchers what you don't get to here is the briefing by the presidential debate commission to the audience he will have a real view of the review are here yourself to hear the directions of vanilla applies or cheering during the debate and elsewhere have an hour before the debate begins for the real insider view in the room. that is another turf that those of us cover politics are familiar so what does it do for those that are not familiar? >> and it is what they might see if they turn on their television. the surrogates for those who speak on behalf of the candidates, politicians are
elected officials, campaign aides they will go into the room to talk to different television network's radio television reporters where they filed the stories and before the debate comes at and after there is a lot of spin of the expectations as it is important for the expectations of the main idea and it tells us they will look carefully what happens there it is unjust the surrogate that the vice-presidential running mate was there this morning there are campaign heavyweights that go to the
room to talk to the media when this is over. >> there is speculation that donald trump may go in there himself. it isn't as long as eight years ago while there was play-by-play happening does the spin room matter as it may have before central me -- social media? >> it is interesting you mentioned he may come back in the end. you made remember in doc primaries donald trump would be there as lead other candidates. that gives it the room a different type of life. that is pretty important and it is unusual but on the other hand hillary clinton
never came back neither did bernie sanders. so this is something that is clearly trying to show to me n charge of delivering his own message. that in and of itself justifies the institution. >> cargoes emblematic of the relationship the campaign has with the press? >> absolutely this is exactly how he conducts his entire campaign. he does all of the spending call to the television show or call the reporters appearing almost 24 hours a day that what he rose through the of republican primary although clinton keeps the media at arm's length only appears in a
structured setting and is never one formerly troubled with that press corps is the essence of these two candidates to play out in the general election. the fact she is not changing stride they think whatever they are doing is working for them. >> we will join the fray. we will show the audience and had listened who has advice for secretary clinton and to help curb proper for those primary debates. what's see what he has to say. >> there is a danger to get dragged into the debate the donald chump -- donald trump wants to have.
that is more of a circus and a debate and it will be difficult to get the first reich that let's go in detail to talk about what has to be done. she has been involved so many decades she has so much to say and he will make it difficult for her to get their just to say whenever or make those accusations but you have to pick your spot on that and deliver your message. that is the key to show that she can show people what she can bring to the table and not just always beat countering trump with his agenda. >> with those advisers you have been speaking to what do they say quite. >> that is very much true that the campaign has used the challenge to not let
trump get away with saying said he does normally while also to convey their own message and that can be contradictory because in order for clinton with trombone -- trump there has to be some votes happening simultaneously but i will show that other challenge for clinton that many recognize her strength is in the command of the issues with her knowledge of what is going on with the minutia of policy but also that is her weakness. and then distilling into bite size phrases and sentences people can take away. one of the things i am sure she is practicing in a
general election that she practiced him up primary to boil that down into something that they can walk away from and waxing eloquence 90 seconds or two minutes but it has to happen in 30 seconds begin to have limited time. she has to temper her strength and she can't go toe to toe with him. >> deifies to president george w. bush then senator john mccain and irani. let's hear his advice for donald trump. >> i think in prior debates it has been very obvious he is extremely good at pretending. he has that branding down. but the question is, al will
day have those particular moments we can draw the attention of the press tusis competitive vantage over her . the e-mail issue is ripe for that handling of the clinton foundation is another issue. her issue as secretary of state that he has talked about before. but the question is if they thought about those scenarios so they end up working to his advantage. >> that is a very interesting point. that it is very silly and. not that trump needs those moments they need a way to make those up positive. he has a lot of debate moments where he has been coming across to be
mean-spirited. they don't want them to come away looking like a bully this is what the clinton campaign is hoping that what he needs to do was find the moments that are working in his favor that allows them to make the point to give people something that is fixed in their mind and that is a challenge for trump because these are unplanned and off the cuff everything he says and dashes in is instinct but they have to make that strategy and that has always been their challenge and that will tonight. >> it will be the most watched of the 32 night for somebody to siva let's talk about the estimated 35 percent of the people tonight they were going to look so what do we know about the people that have
not made up their mind? >> that is reflective of the fact for both trump and clinton there is about one-third of the country those liberal democrats setter hesitant to back clinton because of hard feelings left over from the primary or the independent candidates for those that may not be engaged in politics, and everyone to see something for the two candidates? and many are republicans that they want to vote for donald trump a cannot see themselves voting for hillary clinton and they're waiting for this moment for a permission slip to back him and there are moderate
republicans that need a permission slip to back hillary clinton. not to be with see any movement it would be with a very small sliver. between six and eight percentage points with the overall electorate it makes a difference between who is leading and who is not right now. >> >> thanks for being with us tonight for the debate between donald trump and hillary clinton. >> we will burn what it means to be effective at the debate we will talk to a hofstra university professor. >> the media filing center is down the hall and the tractor of the forensic program professor robinson
what is the first piece of advice? >> first i asked why 812? what is your passion grex then we talk about your goals and how we get you to those goals. >> what if your passion is different? >> we talk about how to make them more realistic and how to make those merge and sometimes we do have passions that don't match but with that passion helps us to realize they are in line with the realistic goals in our perfume. >> what makes said good debate from the armchair? denied the energy and excitement but to hear what they are saying but but
allotted people want to hear policy plans in a concise manner to show who they're voting for and why they are voting for that person. >> to the all have those moments? to make gas. some of those are good some are bad. but if it is for every candidate and it helps to determine who wins. >> is it fair everybody has those moments? and sometimes those take over with that bigger picture is lost quick. >> it is not necessarily for the overall message but any candidate that was to be leader of the united states of america and needs to know those is what makes it through the news and what to
talk about. if you think if you capture the moments to help you capitalize on that. >> does aggressive debating work quite. >> no. especially not in this arena. what you will see tonight tonight, and donald trump and hillary clinton. this will make khamsin like he is avoiding she comes off aggressive then he is seen as too aggressive but both candidates need to take a step back to be confident but not too aggressive with their interactions. >> now you can't give an vice each candidate. what is your one piece of the vice quick. >> donald trump needs to focus on policy one of the biggest critiques of his campaign people don't know
what he wants to do. he needs to focus more on policy toned down his personality. senator clinton needs to talk about policy but she is not personable people don't feel like they know who she is she needs to come across more sociable and how she can make her a message more concise someone normal person can understand what she talks about. >> is it important they play to the moderator? denied they play to the audience more them bought moderator. that matters with the questions they ask and the way they frighten them but the overall audience hiv-2 reached with american viewers at home are the people they need to try to target. >> is it possible to overload with fax quick speenine guest. especially with senator clinton jeanine's to be careful if she talks too
much about facts or policy people don't understand what she tries to say said she needs to keep the message nice and concise. >> professor where will you be watching with your students quick. >> from the spin alley from the media filene center by students are across campus hosting the debate watch and also during the exhibition debate right now on the economy they are in the student center with hundreds of others watching the debate. >> has social media changed? >> absolutely. you are looking for the smiths for twitter at 140 characters snap chat and is to grant you only have so much time and those moments are shared quicker and be more concise.
>> when you take the hofstra university debate team to competition how deeply that expectation quick. >> difference between competition debate and presidential debate there is in town moderator that is asking questions we have spent a lot more time how do we get the facts out there? you do try to over love with competitive debates and playing to the particular judge you think about your delivery or how to get the message out but you're not trying to answer undock questions from the moderator. >> you see the stage for tonight, to podiums, is that conducive to a good debate?
>> i think it is a both candidates to stay behind their podiums. we have seen moments where opponents cross into other territories and how that plays out but it allows us to see their reaction, body language and how they indeed with each other. >> in the past we have talked about the debate of joe lieberman and dick cheney with of vice presidential candidates. what is the difference between standing and seating quick. >> what they're looking for especially food looks presidential? sunday are able to see their confidence to get a better
read of their body language to have a casual confrontation. >> when it comes to perception if one candidate walks out before the other does that matter or one crosses to shake hands quick. >> absolutely that is analyzed, who approaches approaches, friendly with those little snippets but also their interaction. >> finally will you beast discussing in class? >> everything that happens. and also looking at body language to analyze new york that matters.
>> director of one forensics "politico" sent out this week earlier tonight with the unforced errors in the debate. we want to show you those deemed changing moments in presidential debate history. there is no soviet domination. >> i'm sorry did i understand you that they're not using their own sphere of influence? most of the countries there to make sure of the communist sewn on our side of the line? >> i don't believe that yugoslavia considers themselves dominated by the
soviet union. i don't think the romanians consider themselves dominated. that they are considered dominated by the soviet union. there you go again. when i opposed medicare there is another piece of legislation eating the same problem i thought that other legislation would be better for the senior citizens to provide better care and what was passed by will not make age an issue in this campaign. i will not exploit for political purposes might opponent's youth and inexperience. [laughter] [cheers and applause]
>> i might add i don't know which but with the mistakes of the young there is no state. >> the first question goes to governor dukakis you have to minister respond. governor, if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered, would lead you favor the irrevocable death penalty of the killer quake. >> you know, that i oppose the death penalty all my life and items see any evidence as a deterrent there are more better effective ways and we have done so in my own state and this is the reason why we have the biggest drop in